(1) A security interest in favor of a securities intermediary attaches to a person's security entitlement if:
(a) The person buys a financial asset through the securities intermediary in a transaction in which the person is obligated to pay the purchase price to the securities intermediary at the time of the purchase; and
(b) The securities intermediary credits the financial asset to the buyer's securities account before the buyer pays the securities intermediary.
(2) The security interest described in subsection (1) of this section secures the person's obligation to pay for the financial asset.
(3) A security interest in favor of a person that delivers a certificated security or other financial asset represented by a writing attaches to the security or other financial asset if:
(a) The security or other financial asset:
1. In the ordinary course of business is transferred by delivery with any necessary indorsement or assignment; and
2. Is delivered under an agreement between persons in the business of dealing with such securities or financial assets; and
(b) The agreement calls for delivery against payment.
(4) The security interest described in subsection (3) of this section secures the obligation to make payment for the delivery. Effective: July 1, 2001 History: Repealed and reenacted 2000 Ky. Acts ch. 408, sec. 36, effective July 1, 2001. -- Amended 1964 Ky. Acts ch. 130, sec. 22, effective July 1, 1964. -- Created 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 77, sec. 9-206, effective July 1, 1960.
Notes of Decisions
Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. Utley, 439 S.W.2d 57 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 3× “2-316, relating to exclusion of warranties, and KRS 355.9-206, relating to assertion of defenses against an assignee.”
J.P. Morgan Delaware v. Onyx Arabians II, Ltd., 825 F. Supp. 146 (W.D. Ky. 1993).
· cites it 3× “In regard to the Strike Agreement, KRS 355.9-206(1) provides that a buyer, who signs both a negotiable instrument and a security agreement (as Onyx has done), may agree not to assert against an assignee any claim or defense which he may have against the seller.”
Root v. John Deere Co. of Indianapolis, Inc., 413 S.W.2d 901 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967).
“Furthermore, Root agreed to seek redress from the SELLER for any breach of warranty and if the note was assigned not to “use any such claim as a defense against any effort'by the holder to enforce this instrument”.”
Citicorp Leasing, Inc. v. Whitaker, 605 S.W.2d 24 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
“The reason assigned for this decision was that the appellant was not a holder in due course, pursuant to KRS 355.9-206(1), and therefore the partnership herein could raise the defense of a failure of title and of consideration.”
Jennings v. Universal CIT Credit Corp., 442 S.W.2d 565 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969).
“” This provision was apparently inserted into the subject contract pursuant to KRS 355.9-206(1) which provides: “Subject to any statute or decision which establishes a different rule for buyers or lessees of consumer goods, an agreement by a buyer or lessee that he will not…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.9-206(1) — 5 cases
Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. Utley, 439 S.W.2d 57 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969).
“2-316, relating to exclusion of warranties, and KRS 355.9-206, relating to assertion of defenses against an assignee.”
J.P. Morgan Delaware v. Onyx Arabians II, Ltd., 825 F. Supp. 146 (W.D. Ky. 1993).
“In regard to the Strike Agreement, KRS 355.9-206(1) provides that a buyer, who signs both a negotiable instrument and a security agreement (as Onyx has done), may agree not to assert against an assignee any claim or defense which he may have against the seller.”
Root v. John Deere Co. of Indianapolis, Inc., 413 S.W.2d 901 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967).
“Furthermore, Root agreed to seek redress from the SELLER for any breach of warranty and if the note was assigned not to “use any such claim as a defense against any effort'by the holder to enforce this instrument”.”
Citicorp Leasing, Inc. v. Whitaker, 605 S.W.2d 24 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
“The reason assigned for this decision was that the appellant was not a holder in due course, pursuant to KRS 355.9-206(1), and therefore the partnership herein could raise the defense of a failure of title and of consideration.”
Jennings v. Universal CIT Credit Corp., 442 S.W.2d 565 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969).
“” This provision was apparently inserted into the subject contract pursuant to KRS 355.9-206(1) which provides: “Subject to any statute or decision which establishes a different rule for buyers or lessees of consumer goods, an agreement by a buyer or lessee that he will not…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.